Nikon D600 and many questions

[enerlevel]

Hi all,
I just recently purchased a nikon D600 with 24-85 VR kit lens. This was due to my limited budget and based on all the internet reviews, this was the best camera for me.
Now on a vacation, I have noticed that something doesn't seem correct. To start off, DXO rates this camera as one of the best low light performer, which is the major buying decision for me as I love taking pic. With natural light... I usually find myself as high as 6400-10000.

My major issue with this camera is image sharpness. Even at low iso, the image is not sharp enough. I took some face shots and although I can see a lot of detail, but the crispness is not there.
Just lately I saw some pics taken from a 5d mark III and 24-70 f2.8 mkII , and I can say that it was very very sharp and crisp. However when seen at actual size, the pic looked more smudged like a water painting than my d600.
therefore I would like to ask a few questions
1) why doesn't my image have that crispness? I have used 3 Lens so far , sigma 24-70 f2.8 dg macro , 24-85 VR and 50 f1.8 ... They all give similar results.. Or is it something to do with the camera sensor itself ?
2) I am using Lightroom to remove noise .. My friend uses another program for this 5d mkIII... Is it the program that is giving him the crisp and punchy jpegs but giving the oil painting look at actual size?

I know for the fact that whenever a nikon camera comes out, the internet gets crazy ... ( nikon d7000 was rated as good as FF sensor when it first came out) therefore I don't know if the d600 is as good as the internet makes it sound..

I am on a vacation , but ill try to give some samples to show what I mean

 

[enerlevel]

 

[Derrel]

Digital images need Unsharp Masking applied to them (or some other type of sharpening) to make them look "Crisp". Also...exact, precise focusing, and good lenses, and adequate camera support are needed to make a high-resolution, 24-megapixel capture that looks really "Crisp".

Your screen capture of two shots in Lightroom doesn't provide the EXIF information we could use to determine how well you're managing the technical demands of a 24-MP, FX camera. a number of very important shooting discipline issues MUST be done properly, or a 24-MP image will not look as good as it should or could. Too small of a lens aperture for example, can cause diffraction and/or slight camera or subject movement, or all THREE things!!!

 

[jaomul]

Also if your shooting raw you may need to sharpen in post. If it is jpeg check your camera settings. Sometimes by default sharpening is turned all the way down.

 

[marc.christoffel]

Looks more like out of focus to me. Something like your focal plane is slightly I front of the subject. Back focusing.

 

[enerlevel]

I doubt it's focus issue because I am getting sharp images from a 50mm f1.8. I know that it's very easy to see a focus issue with a lens wide open but that's not the case with my D600.
For the shot above, I have used f6 and all my shots are of the same nature...
I tried to post process some of the images and it looks like in order to get the same image style as of the 5d mark III, I need to use the sharpening bar to "80" which is almost full.. And I have never done that in the past with all the cameras I have owned... Something def. wrong

 

[clarnibass]

It's hard to say based on these screenshots because eventhough it is 1:1 in Lightroom, it doesn't open to anywhere near this size when I click on the photo. It stays a small size.

If you can post a full photo, especailly a RAW file, it would be easier to see what is going on.

 

[sleist]

Have you tried AF fine tuning for the lens that's giving you soft images? I have 10 lenses. Half of them need fine tuning on my D7100 and my D700. The lenses and the tuning amounts are different on each body, so having one lens be sharp on a given body really means nothing with respect to any other lens/body combination.

 

[enerlevel]

Yes I have tried the micro adjust. It doesn't make any difference. Like it said , I don't think it's the focus ... It's just that it is not being able to give me enough sharpness and punch in the pic...
I have tried it with 3 lens so far and dunno if it's still the lens problem or the camera body itself.

 

[SCraig]

Which is it? In post 1 and 9 you say that all three lenses are acting up yet in post 6 you say you are getting sharp images from the 50 f/1.8. If all three lenses are acting up I would suspect either the body or user error. If it is only two of them then I would suspect either the lenses or user error.

As Derrel mentioned there is a harsh learning curve when going to a high-resolution body, especially if you are coming from one with significantly less resolution. When I went from a 12mp D90 to a 16mp D7000 I was disappointed at first because my shots lacked the sharpness that I wanted. Then I realized that it wasn't the body or my lenses, it was me. More resolution means just that, the body is able to resolve smaller differences in detail. Slight movements that weren't visible at 12mp suddenly started showing up at 16mp.

Are you absolutely, positively certain that it isn't you? I'm not saying that it is, only that it's a possibility. Try a shot on a tripod and see how that works.

 

[enerlevel]

^^
thanks for the reply , maybe you Misunderstood my post or I couldn't explain it properly ... Usually when things are back/front focusing , the image is soft .. But that is not in my case ... With my 5m f1.8 I can clearly see that the focus is where I exactly want it to be (sharp in that sense) I have tried micro. And I can see that 0 gives me sharper images.

Now when u use a cheap lens, u usually see how your images are soft or not punchy but that doesn't mean the camera is not focusing well ...
I have the same problem and I would say it's the 24-85 VR lens problem but things get fishy when all 3 lens give u similar results.

I could say user error as that's me in the pic and the photo was taken by someone else but I see the pic is taken with. Middle focus , 250/1 , f6.5 , iso 160 with VR active ... I can hardly think of any user error at this point ...
I have also used many cameras which includes D800, 5D mark II, III, D3s etc so mega pixel is not a problem

 

[KmH]

Canon's 5D MKIII is a $3500 prosumer grade DSLR, and the $2300 Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II USM lens is a professional grade lens.

Nikon's $1900 D600 is an entry-level grade camera that is essentially a Nikon D7100 with a full frame image sensor crammed into it, and the $600 Nikon AF-S 24-85 mm f/3.5- 4.5G VR is a consumer grade lens.

Another difference is in the image processor each camera has. Canon and Nikon take slightly different approaches to image rendering.

You don't say if you are sharpening Raw files or JPEG files in Lightroom, and though you mention using a value of 80 for the sharpening Amount, you don't specify the Radius, Detail, Masking, Luminosity, and Color slider settings you used in the LR sharpening panel.

 

[enerlevel]

^^ Thanks for the message , yes the 5D mkIII is a total different level in terms of auto focus, speed etc , but when it comes down to image sensor , it should be on par with the 5D mkIII if not better (as I mentioned DXO rates the sensor 3rd best) One of my doubt was that my lens was crap but even the 50mm f1.8 is giving me similar results ... Unless the 24-70 f2.8 mkII is much sharper than 50mm f1.8 @2.8 which I doubt... I am sharpening raw in Lightroom at 80 is the detail

 

[kja6]

Hmmm... try borrowing your friend's 5DIII, take a photo, transfer to YOUR computer, and YOU edit using whatever tools/software you use. Then compare your D600 shot (24mp, FX) with the 5DIII shot (22.3mp, FX) for standards of sharpness (after post-processing!!!) and see if you can get them both to a similar level. You're seeing a photo that your friend had taken (with better gear, too) and post-processed. It's like comparing apples to oranges because of two completely different photographers. If you still see a problem with the D600, then you can safely narrow it down to the lenses/body.

 

[TheLost]

To start off, DXO rates this camera as one of the best low light performer, which is the major buying decision for me as I love taking pic. With natural light... I usually find myself as high as 6400-10000.

I'm still stuck on this... are you saying you always have to shoot at 6400-10000 ISO?